First, don't identify your SCP with a number. Your SCP should be SCP-XXXX, you'll get the number once you post it on the main site (which you shouldn't do until the admins/critique mods green light you).

Second, I'd like a little more info on this "personality shift".

Third, your language really needs some revising. This line in particular:

It's hair, which is in black coloration, is extremely long, and it grows at an accelerated speed which is estimated to be 1.6 inches per month.

seems really unnecessary—there's no mention of it needing to be cut, or not being able to be cut, etc. Also, "which is in black coloration" is needlessly wordy. Just say it has black hair. If that fact is even relevant.

I'm assuming this means her cheeks are streaked and worn through, possibly revealing some of her skull beneath, since it comes from her eyes? No? Then you should probably comment on the fact that, despite SCP-XXXX-1 being corrosive, SCP-XXXX shows a resistance to its corrosiveness. The Foundation would certainly note that, after all. Perhaps she would be resistant to other types of corrosive elements, which might make her useful in helping contain other SCPs, if that's your headcanon.

Overall, I can tell this is a very early work in process. It's an interesting idea, but there's very little substance here. Basically, your SCP is a "really old girl who can manipulate acid from her eyes," but your article tells us very little more than that. Even the exchange between her and the doctor makes very little sense and tells us almost nothing. Why did the Foundation even bother transcribing that conversation? You've gone to great lengths describing her appearance, but not much else, and that makes the article fall a little flat.

As a courtesy to our readers on mobile devices, please collapse long posts. ~Zyn

That said…keep working on it. You clearly have some ideas in the baking, I'd love to see where you go with them.

BOTTOM SCP Feedback—

(Sorry again)

Good job on changing to SCP-XXXX. I noticed when I went back through to look at the second one.

I'm going to address points as I come across them:

Very first, if the Foundation can't contain it at all, it probably shouldn't be classified as Euclid. Classifications are not threat, they are ability to be contained and risk of breaking containment. While many Keter-class SCPs are "OMG the world will end if this gets out", there are other quite dangerous SCPs that are classified as Euclid, or even safe. I find this blurb from the "Classifications" guide extremely helpful:

If you lock it in a box, leave it alone, and nothing bad will happen, then it's probably Safe.
If you lock it in a box, leave it alone, and you're not entirely sure what will happen, then it's probably Euclid.
If you lock it in a box, leave it alone, and it easily escapes, then it's probably Keter.
If it is the box, then it's probably Thaumiel.

To begin, it's kind of a red flag when the writer starts with the words "As there is no known method of containing SCP-XXXX". This shows a lack of forethought, but also treats the Foundation kind of like idiots—it's like saying "it's beyond human comprehension" (which is another red flag. Great for speculative horror, not so much for clinical science.)

My big issue here is, the containment protocols make no sense. Let me explain why.
First, you say that it must be tracked in four-hour shifts through "technological means". This is not only very vague, but the line following that says "any direct visual contact" implies that its somewhere in the physical world, and they're tracking it on screen, or through a GPS-like device, or whatever you can imagine, really.

Once I read the description, however, I learn it's an entity that only appears on digital feeds. Okay…how on earth do you track it then? Do you travel from screen to screen, search social media, I mean, if it's just an entity that appears on any video feed, how is the Foundation even able to track it?

I think, however, that it could work, but you'd need to narrow the scope a bit, maybe do some research on surveillance systems. For example, is the SCP able to only appear in the video feed of networked systems? What makes it appear where it does, locationally? What attracts it? Why does it choose to appear to specific individuals? Though you may want to obscure the reasoning behind these things, you yourself should know the answers, and this comes across that you don't, yet. (I understand it's still a work in progress, but maybe you could submit this idea to the ideas forum, and get some feedback).

A big thing you need to work on is clinical tone—I noticed this in your other SCP as well, but use of words like "any sort", "tends", "can", "may" is very casual, and not in keeping with the professional, cold, clinical tone of the Foundation's reports. Further, the SCP itself, what it does and how it proceeds, is very vague. This really seems more like an idea brainstorm, than a first draft, and I really think you need to sit down and get some of these ideas more concrete.

You seem to have a good variety of ideas. Your two SCPs are very different from each other, and while they might be a little common in nature, I think they're both worth exploring.